Bioshock wrote:Actually, no it's not something he has to do. He has no power at all since Penn State signed off on this. This is a political move to try and make himself look good after dropping the ball repeatedly. Hell, he was very influential in getting Paterno out and now he says the stuff that happened was too harsh? Please...

I'm in agreement with everything you been saying, but I don't think you meant to quote me. I think you just meant to quote Guru only.

I think Penn State was kind of pinned in a corner. It was either a 4 year death penalty or the crippling sanctions that they accepted. I dont think Penn State had any choice but to accept given what football weekends mean for the livelyhood of many everyday State College residents.

Bioshock wrote:Actually, no it's not something he has to do. He has no power at all since Penn State signed off on this. This is a political move to try and make himself look good after dropping the ball repeatedly. Hell, he was very influential in getting Paterno out and now he says the stuff that happened was too harsh? Please...

I'm in agreement with everything you been saying, but I don't think you meant to quote me. I think you just meant to quote Guru only.

I think Penn State was kind of pinned in a corner. It was either a 4 year death penalty or the crippling sanctions that they accepted. I dont think Penn State had any choice but to accept given what football weekends mean for the livelyhood of many everyday State College residents.

PSU had the choice of telling the NCAA to piss up a rope and beating the death penalty in court. They chose not to play that game.

relantel wrote:Motives aside, the timing question still lingers in my head. The harm by letting a season happen under it is irreparable they argue yet they didn't fight that harm.

(And I agree with the suit, even though I think Corbett is dead man walking and needs to be primaried)

To respond to a post above, I think PSU would have been ill served to fight the sanctions in court. Just my opinion but fighting them and going through years of this (I mean PSU) alone wouldnt have accomplished much but people hating them more.

My timing might be off, but was this not in a grand jury the winter and spring before Paternos last season? I have been on record as saying some of the Corbett delayed this on purpose may be overblown because a lot of impartials (like the psychiatrist for the children) have said in interviews how he handled it just fine.

My question is was there evidence to say he delayed it after the grand jury was over? That was long before JoePas last season. Also, why are we not ALL OVER the media for their handling of this? It was basically ignored until it couldnt be ignored any further.

Finally, everyone understands the kids are the victims. It doesnt mean you cant disagree with the sanctions or not agree with Corbetts lawsuit.

I can see him using it to appeal to the PSU fans that think the sanctions were unfair. Also, he can use the "keep PA money in PA tactic". He just has to hope that it doesn't come out down the road that he failed to act as the AG where this case is concerned.

Dragging this out into a fresh cycle isn't going to change the court of public opinion. Did anyone really think the Paterno's own commissioned report would have come out any other way? It will be interesting to see if Curley, Shultz, or Spanier implicate Joe in their trials.